Flaming whip

[Drowbane]

I have to disagree with Hyp on this one. The flaming ability does damage independent of the weapons damage (if any).

I refuse to believe that Hyp actually believes what he is saying. This is an obvious Troll.
Simply too rediculous. Of course, if I'm wrong...

n/m that'd been too much like bashing. lays nice:

 

[IcyCool]

But the energy damage is inflicted by the weapon. If the whip cannot pass on fire with a failed subdual attack, why is the sword passing slashing damage on a failed fire attack?

Could you clarify this? I've got no clue what you just said. Fire attack whatnow?

By your whip description, damage blocked one source negates the other by virtue of it all being weapon damage.

Ah. I see the confusion now. The fire damage is dealt by the weapon, it is not weapon damage. Clear?

The description states: "A whip deals no damage ...", not "a whip deals no weapon damage...".

 

[IcyCool]

I refuse to believe that Hyp actually believes what he is saying. This is an obvious Troll.
Simply too rediculous. Of course, if I'm wrong...

n/m that'd been too much like bashing. lays nice:

Read the whip description in the SRD. Really read it. Don't interpret, read what it actually says. It is ridiculous, but that's what it actually says.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By your whip description, damage blocking one source negates the other by virtue of it all being weapon damage.

No, that's not what we said at all.

There are two qualities of each damage quantity that must considered.

1. What type is the damage?
2. What was the damage dealt by?

We have damage A which is 1. fire and 2. dealt by the whip.
We have damage B which is 1. slashing and 2. dealt by the whip.

Immunity to fire prevents damage dependent on value 1.
+1 Armor or +3 natural armor prevents damage dependent on value 2.

Damage A is prevented by fire immunity, since value 1 is 'fire'.
Damage B is not prevented by fire immunity, since value 1 is not 'fire'.

Damage A is prevented by armor, since value 2 is 'dealt by the whip'.
Damage B is prevented by armor, since value 2 is 'dealt by the whip'.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Ah. I see the confusion now. The fire damage is dealt by the weapon, it is not weapon damage. Clear?

.

Nope.

whip damage is blocked by armor. fire damage is blocked by fire immunity. All damage is done by the weapon per previous description, regardless of its type. By said definition, weapons with fire immunity do no damage to critters with fire immunity. Part of the damage done by the weapon is blocked.

EDIT: Meant 'weapons with fire enhancement'

 

[Hypersmurf]

whip damage is blocked by armor.

Close enough.

Fire damage is blocked by fire immunity.

Yup.

All damage is done by the weapon per previous description, regardless of its type.

Overgeneralising, but true in the case of a flaming whip. 'dealt' rather than 'done' is more precise.

By said definition, weapons with fire immunity do no damage to critters with fire immunity.

Not the case. Weapons with fire immunity deal no fire damage to creatures with fire immunity. That's the benefit the ability provides.

Part of the damage done by the weapon is blocked.

True.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Not the case. Weapons with fire immunity deal no fire damage to creatures with fire immunity. That's the benefit the ability provides.

-Hyp.

But by this example, fire damage is a separate type of damage dealt in addition to the weapons damage. The same would go for the whip. It's fire enhancement is a separate type of damage not limited to the restrictions of the weapon damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But by this example, fire damage is a separate type of damage dealt in addition to the weapons damage.

No, it's a separate type of damage dealt, in addition to the slashing damage.

Both the fire damage and the slashing damage are the 'weapon's damage', since they're both damage dealt by the weapon.

The fire damage is not subject to restrictions on slashing damage. It is subject to restrictions on damage dealt by the weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Patryn
1. It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
2. All husbands are men. (Lemma)
3. If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
4. This is a contradiction.

Ergo, husbands cannot ovulate.

.

Dannyalcatraz
If #3 actually occured, it would not support your conclusion, but would rather refute either the rule or the lemma.

Patryn
True. Which means, what in this case?

In this case, it means either your Rule is untrue and it IS possible for men to ovulate OR your Lemma is flawed and not all husbands are men.

Dannyalcatraz
1. A whip is a weapon does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. "Flaming" is a magical enhancement to weapons that deals fire damage upon a successful hit (Lemma)
3. Therefore, if a flaming whip scores a successful hit against an armored opponent, it does no whip damage + 1d6 fire damage from the Flaming enhancement.

IcyCool
#2 in your post here is incorrect. The enhancement doesn't deal the fire damage, the weapon does. And that is what is causing the whole problem. House rule it and be done, I say. It certainly isn't the first time the letter of the rules was idiotic.

No, #2 IS correct.

While unclear (at least to some) in the base power:

Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
Flaming: "... A flaming weapon does an extra 1d6 ponts of fire damage on a successful hit."

it is quickly followed by (emphasis mine):

Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
Flaming Burst "A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes wtih flame upon striking a successul critical hit...In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst deals and extra 1d10 fire damage on a successful critical hit..."

Flaming Burst is utterly clear- the "extra damage from the flaming ability" means that the magical enhancement deals damage, not the weapon. The only difference between Burst and mere flaming is the burst on crit itself. The power's mechanism does not change.

It is akin to a permanent Symbol spell- the object that the Symbol is upon doesn't matter- just its trigger. Here, the trigger is a "successful hit."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Flaming Burst is utterly clear- the "extra damage from the flaming ability" means that the magical enhancement deals damage, not the weapon.

Despite the fact that the Flaming ability actually states that the weapon deals the damage?

I wouldn't have killed the orc, had it not been for the extra damage from the bard's Inspire Courage ability. But it was me who dealt the damage.

Flaming Burst doesn't say that the magical enhancement deals damage. It notes that the damage - which we know from the text is dealt by the weapon - comes from the flaming ability.

The two statements ("damage from the flaming ability" and "weapon deals damage") are not contradictory. As soon as you say "the ability deals damage", however, you're introducing a statement that contradicts something in the rules.

-Hyp.